(29-08-2012 11:02 PM)SlipStitch Wrote: From what information I could find, and by asking mothers of boys who did the procedure, a circumcision can cost up to $500. Not a huge amount, I guess, but still a good chunk of change.

I absolutely refuse to have it done to my son. Nature put it there for a reason, dammit!

Doesn't it provide more nerves for sexual stimulation or something?

Yes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

We are only having this argument because some Bronze Age goat fuckers herders came up with this stupid idea.
Maimonides on circumcision:

Quote:Similarly with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is, in my opinion, the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible. It has been thought that circumcision perfects what is defective congenitally. This gave the possibility to everyone to raise an objection and to say: How can natural things be defective so that they need to be perfected from outside, all the more because we know how useful the foreskin is for that member? In fact this commandment has not been prescribed with a view to perfecting what is defective congenitally, but to perfecting what is defective morally. The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision. None of the activities necessary for the preservation of the individual is harmed thereby, nor is procreation rendered impossible, but violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened. The Sages, may their memory be blessed, have explicitly stated: It is hard for a woman with whom an uncircumcised man has had sexual intercourse to separate from him. In my opinion this is the strongest of the reasons for circumcision.

Quote:The perfection and perpetuation of this Law can only be achieved if circumcision is performed in childhood. For this there are three wise reasons. The first is that if the child were let alone until he grew up, he would sometimes not perform it. The second is that a child does not suffer as much pain as a grown-up man because his membrane is still soft and his imagination weak; for a grown-up man would regard the thing, which he would imagine before it occurred, as terrible and hard. The third is that the parents of a child that is just born take lightly matters concerning it, for up to that time the imaginative form that compels the parents to love it is not yet consolidated. For this imaginative form increases through habitual contact and grows with the growth of the child. Then it begins to decrease and to disappear, I refer to this imaginative form. For the love of the father and of the mother for the child when it has just been born is not like their love for it when it is one year old, and their love for it when it is one year old is not like their love when it is six years old. Consequently if it were left uncircumcised for two or three years, this would necessitate the abandonment of circumcision because of the father's love and affection for it. At the time of its birth, on the other hand, this imaginative form is very weak, especially as far as concerns the father upon whom this commandment is imposed.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.

I suppose if there was a real social need for circumcision in general, I as a part of the society would hear of it or see some discussion about such matters. However I don't, it is a non-issue in civilized lands. (unlike for example cancer, obesity, alcoholism, etc)

Even doctors nowadays hesitate to chop it all off, usually just cutting the bridle part to loosen it is enough. I'd say, scientists try to make surgeries and medicine in general less and less invasive.

(29-08-2012 11:02 PM)SlipStitch Wrote: From what information I could find, and by asking mothers of boys who did the procedure, a circumcision can cost up to $500. Not a huge amount, I guess, but still a good chunk of change.

I absolutely refuse to have it done to my son. Nature put it there for a reason, dammit!

Not a huge amount? 500$ was just about my monthly paycheck, after tax deduction and bus fare. (not in dollars) There's no way I'd give out such money for something that isn't a real, immediate need. Specially if I just founded a new family, these never have enough money.

I do not know personally anybody who had a foreskin chopped off and they all seem to live just fine with it.

I was speaking more in a general sense of how much cosmetic surgeries cost. Since that's basically all it is. There's no real medical reason to do this to an infant boy. So, when it's looked at from that point of view, it's much less spendy than having a nose job or something. But it's still a big chunk of change, yes. From my point of view, I've got the money to spend on it, but I would much rather put it into a college savings account for my son or spend it on something he actually needs than use it towards an unnecessary and painful surgery. We're on the same page with that one, Luminon.

And, yes, Logica, an intact foreskin does provide more nerves that are stimulated during sexual activity. And it protects the head during... er... down time.

Someone in one of my psych courses this was brought up. Basically it said that the foreskin could tear easier (not in a bad way) making disease spread easier..... other things like the urinary tract things were easily remedied in the way I will list in the solutions.

The solution that makes the "benefits" not useful as was in my classes' information? Wash your penis (properly) and have safe sex.

(03-09-2012 08:54 AM)elemts Wrote: Someone in one of my psych courses this was brought up. Basically it said that the foreskin could tear easier (not in a bad way) making disease spread easier..... other things like the urinary tract things were easily remedied in the way I will list in the solutions.

The solution that makes the "benefits" not useful as was in my classes' information? Wash your penis (properly) and have safe sex.

(03-09-2012 08:54 AM)elemts Wrote: Someone in one of my psych courses this was brought up. Basically it said that the foreskin could tear easier (not in a bad way) making disease spread easier..... other things like the urinary tract things were easily remedied in the way I will list in the solutions.

The solution that makes the "benefits" not useful as was in my classes' information? Wash your penis (properly) and have safe sex.

It makes me wonder how our species has survived all these years

God's love?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.